Re: Lost the plot
Cheers Simon, thanks for replying.
As we al know, politicians (and their servants in utilities, who have no real choice about it) love to pretend that a FTTN network is vastly cheaper than an all-fibre network, which of course it isn't. It is somewhat cheaper in the short term (estimates vary a lot but if you wanted to say around 20% I'd be happy enough to accept that as a working figure) but of course much dearer over the medium term (because it will have to be replaced with fibre sooner or later anyway).
The point here is that, having decided on a (not very) cheap FTTN network for a given suburb, they then offer individual true fibre connections at a huge added cost to the consumer, and cite this cost (typically several thousand dollars) as the "cost difference" between copper and fibre for the last kilometre - which of course it is not. This in turn is the "justification" for installing an inferior technology.
In reality, of course, the four figure "extra cost" does not reflect the difference between fibre and FTTN, it reflects the cost of installing a single, special-purpose link for just one customer. Nearly all of that "extra cost" has nothing to do with the link being fibre all-through or fibre plus copper, it has to do with the expense of doing a custom install, and it would be every bit as high if the custom service used wire, string, or well-trained hamsters instead of fibre optic cable.
It is highly misleading to talk about the "huge cost" of fibre connections when in fact, they cost about the same as FTTN ones.
Disclaimer: no sour grapes here. I'm perfectly happy with my new(ish) fibre connection, but my old HFC connection was quite sufficient to meet my modest needs. I just don't like seeing politicians' lies parroted unchallenged in what is supposed to be a technical publication.